K
Kitty Sinatra
I still wanna see this thread get moved to NSFW. Mike Seaver (with Boner) on Darwin. c'mon, people!
Kirk Cameron on Darwin
- Thread starter ZenMonkey
- Start date
- Status
C
Chazwozel
When I say "Science", I'm not talking about JUST scientists. I'm also talking about people who simply "believe" in Science for their day to day needs. After all, when we say "Religion", we aren't just talking about people who work for a church, we're also talking about people who simply attend service or live their lives by the teachings of said religion.[/QUOTE]
Science has this magical thing called fact and results that are reviewed by scientific peers. Chances are if somethings published as a fact, then it's currently the 'truth'. I'd say it makes sense for John Q. Public to believe what those wacky scientists are telling them.
Okay, if you know the guys personally, I can accept that.[/QUOTE]
Not personally no, but I know THEM, their organization and what they do better than I wish I did. I'm not saying I'm know anything special, but we travel in similar circles so I get their mindset.
My main point was really is, they are coming from a place of religious understanding that if you don't get it, it's hard to understand what they are doing or why. And let me tell you, as someone who does come from that religious understanding it's hard for me to grasp the BS they are spewing, but it's not unfamiliar to me.
And Krisken. Dear, dear Krisken. You know who I am and what I do so you know exactly why I said that you little smart ass
PS: I don't like the new wink smiley. It does not convey the joking nature I desire it to convey. It looks like a very sad half blink.
Oh, you mean like the Westboro Baptists?
No, it's not hard to understand that what they are doing is wrong. Just fucking wrong. The way they are going about it is wrong. They are deliberately getting around the rule of not being able to hand out Bibles by tucking Scripture inside Origin of Species. That is not defensible no matter how enlightened one may be about their ultimate goal.
Again, I ask, what if I rewrote the New Testament so that Jesus said "homosexual marriage is totally cool and those who follow me should support it" and then went to churches and passed it out going "Look, I have a nice free Bible for you!" I'd be fucking lynched.
This discussion is veering off into creationism vs. evolution, which is fine, but nothing about what Comfort & Cameron are doing is "okay" just because one might happen to agree with their beliefs.
No, it's not hard to understand that what they are doing is wrong.
This discussion is veering off into creationism vs. evolution, which is fine, but nothing about what Comfort & Cameron are doing is "okay" just because one might happen to agree with their beliefs.[/QUOTE]
You know I agree with you so I will re-iterate because I think people are misunderstanding me:
I never said it was "good", just that people think this is about evolution and creationism and darwin, but it isn't about that to them. Thats simply their poor tool they are using. I am not defending them or their actions, in fact for anyone to think that they would have to have ignored 99% of everything I have said in this thread.
And drifter? If you want to start making comparisons that don't work just go right to Hitler and save us all some time.
I don't know; while my comment was meant to be mostly tongue-in-cheek, I feel the comparison is fairly apt. From my point of view, you were making the case that, while their methods are bad, their intent comes from a good place insofar as their beliefs are concerned. Doesn't that pretty much describe the Westboro Baptists? (Aside from your own argument, I feel that with both groups, they have come to the conclusion that the ends justify the means, although the WBC sure does take it a lot farther.) If I have misconstrued your meaning, or read into your post something that isn't there, my bad.And drifter? If you want to start making comparisons that don't work just go right to Hitler and save us all some time.
I don't know; while my comment was meant to be mostly tongue-in-cheek, I feel the comparison is fairly apt. From my point of view, you were making the case that, while their methods are bad, their intent comes from a good place insofar as their beliefs are concerned. Doesn't that pretty much describe the Westboro Baptists? (Aside from your own argument, I feel that with both groups, they have come to the conclusion that the ends justify the means, although the WBC sure does take it a lot farther.) If I have misconstrued your meaning, or read into your post something that isn't there, my bad.[/QUOTE]And drifter? If you want to start making comparisons that don't work just go right to Hitler and save us all some time.
No, what Comfort and tv dude are doing is very stupid and mildly offensive but in the end it's not going to hurt anyone. The WBC is a hateful, evil group of people. It is not, in my opinion as far as the spectrum of religious folks in the US go, a fair comparison to either group.
I'm not sure the WBC actually has an interest in recruiting when they go off on their shenanigans. This is an effort to brainwash and suck people into their "church" (or ministry, whatever it is). I do see a difference there, although I find both situations totally unpalatable.
...to some, while enormously offensive to others.
When I say "Science", I'm not talking about JUST scientists. I'm also talking about people who simply "believe" in Science for their day to day needs. After all, when we say "Religion", we aren't just talking about people who work for a church, we're also talking about people who simply attend service or live their lives by the teachings of said religion.[/QUOTE]
Science has this magical thing called fact and results that are reviewed by scientific peers. Chances are if somethings published as a fact, then it's currently the 'truth'. I'd say it makes sense for John Q. Public to believe what those wacky scientists are telling them.[/QUOTE]
But that's just replacing a preacher with a scientist, which kinda goes against the entire premise of "finding the truth" and getting people to Think for themselves. Both have a vested interest in getting the public to believe them. Both are known for intentionally misleading the public (here's a short article about increasing fraud in the Scientific Community). Are you honestly going to tell me that the scientist is innately more trustworthy than the preacher? It seems to me that both are using the same tools and tricks to have their way.
Fair enough. I know a lot of Christians who think the Da Vinci Code is extremely offensive so I guess I can see how this would be as well to some.
We can agree that it is stupid and offensive.
My original intent was not to directly compare Kirk Cameron et al. with the WBC, rather my post was more a shot at Espy's lukewarm defense of KC's motivations, which could be used to rationalize any number of terrible ideas. Of course, my second post did more or less directly compare the two groups, which is my mistake.
I'm confused. You think I don't know that people can take good motives and twist them to something stupid or bad or even evil?
Did I not say that despite good motives I think what they did/are doing is stupid/bad?
Not everyone here necessarily agrees with you that their motives are good as well.
fade
Staff member
Only if it's a bad scientist or teacher. I good scientist leads his students to the result with observable evidence. That's what inherently makes it more trustworthy. If I dump a bunch of facts on you or "trick" you, I'm not doing my job the right way. You can't judge all by the few bad apples. I can safely say I've never heard of modern scientists being "known for intentionally misleading the public"--at least not for long. Also, I have less interest in the public believing me than I do in my investors, potential end users, and peers--most of whom have the background to judge the merit of my work.
I do have to disagree with Chazwozel's use of the word truth though. The first thing I do on day one of my big non-major geology classes is define science, and one of the pictures I use is a plot of science vs. truth. Science approaches and asymptotes, but never completely meets up with it.
I'm confused. You think I don't know that people can take good motives and twist them to something stupid or bad or even evil?
Did I not say that despite good motives I think what they did/are doing is stupid/bad?[/quote]
Like I said earlier, my original post was also meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
This seems like it's turning into a game of internet misunderstandings, so I'd just like to say that the silver spider turns along the whistle goat.
-edit-
Also, yes, that wink smiley sucks hard.
Fade, beautifully said. I couldn't work up a coherent response and yours hits all the right points.
Too often popular science, in which the author might have a certain bias or motive for writing his book, and the actual professional practice of science are conflated. And believe me, I have nothing whatsoever against popular science (I love Stephen J. Gould's essays, and Skeptic magazine), but that's usually where you'll find the "trickery." For example, I started reading a very interesting book about madness in the 20th century, but the author had such a giant chip on his shoulder about our current mental health system that it really undermined even the basic historical facts he was presenting. (I also don't mean to say no research scientists have problematic biases in their work.)
Coming late to the party here, but I sort of have to agree with drifter.
My thought when I was reading through this thread was "man, that's true, but it's also a blanket statement for everything! Off to the respond-o-mobile!", but he beat me to it, sort of.
M_D: while their intentions may be good - and I won't argue that - this in itself can't and shouldn't be used in any way to excuse or pardon their acts. Yes, they truly believe they're triying to help and save people. Heck, I know pretty devote Christians who actively try and save me and other people. Sure. But that same logic *can* be applied, not only to the WBC, but also to, say, people flying airplanes into towers, or suicide bombers in general. Most of them are religiously motivated, and truly do believe they're martyring themselves for the good of humanity. Doesn't change the fact they're assholes destroying lives, though.
That aside, I also agree soemwhat with Ashburner. I've seen too many people treat science as a religion. The scientific method is not "blindly believe what I'm told by a scientist". Of course we can't all spend all our time checking everything, and so on and so forth- that's what peers are for and al lthat. The scientific canon will be mostly made up of uquite generally accepted truths, and things unlikely to change vastly very quickly...but still, blind faith in science is useless. Thinking for oneself and being free of thought, free of dogmas, free of prejudices is all we should strive for. And most scientists fail hard at this :-P
My thought when I was reading through this thread was "man, that's true, but it's also a blanket statement for everything! Off to the respond-o-mobile!", but he beat me to it, sort of.
M_D: while their intentions may be good - and I won't argue that - this in itself can't and shouldn't be used in any way to excuse or pardon their acts. Yes, they truly believe they're triying to help and save people. Heck, I know pretty devote Christians who actively try and save me and other people. Sure. But that same logic *can* be applied, not only to the WBC, but also to, say, people flying airplanes into towers, or suicide bombers in general. Most of them are religiously motivated, and truly do believe they're martyring themselves for the good of humanity. Doesn't change the fact they're assholes destroying lives, though.
That aside, I also agree soemwhat with Ashburner. I've seen too many people treat science as a religion. The scientific method is not "blindly believe what I'm told by a scientist". Of course we can't all spend all our time checking everything, and so on and so forth- that's what peers are for and al lthat. The scientific canon will be mostly made up of uquite generally accepted truths, and things unlikely to change vastly very quickly...but still, blind faith in science is useless. Thinking for oneself and being free of thought, free of dogmas, free of prejudices is all we should strive for. And most scientists fail hard at this :-P
I have no problem with this as long as they are up front about what they're doing. If you're that weak in your faith that you have to trick people into joining it, like Cameron and Comfort are doing, you get negative respect from me. They're exactly the same as those "personality test" Scientologists.
C
Chazwozel
Only if it's a bad scientist or teacher. I good scientist leads his students to the result with observable evidence. That's what inherently makes it more trustworthy. If I dump a bunch of facts on you or "trick" you, I'm not doing my job the right way. You can't judge all by the few bad apples. I can safely say I've never heard of modern scientists being "known for intentionally misleading the public"--at least not for long. Also, I have less interest in the public believing me than I do in my investors, potential end users, and peers--most of whom have the background to judge the merit of my work.
I do have to disagree with Chazwozel's use of the word truth though. The first thing I do on day one of my big non-major geology classes is define science, and one of the pictures I use is a plot of science vs. truth. Science approaches and asymptotes, but never completely meets up with it.[/QUOTE]
I should have put truth in quotations. Wait I did. I did imply the asymptotic approach towards truth, non the less. I agree with your definition.
As for scientists that intentionally mislead their findings well: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-08-24-cloning-scientist-jail_N.htm Let's just say if you get found out, your career is over.
What Ash is describing is close to plain ol' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_intellectualism
I have no problem with this as long as they are up front about what they're doing. If you're that weak in your faith that you have to trick people into joining it, like Cameron and Comfort are doing, you get negative respect from me. They're exactly the same as those "personality test" Scientologists.[/QUOTE]
Totally agree.
And Bubbles: I agree with what you and drifter are saying about taking a good (in this case religious) motive and using to fly airplanes into buildings. But couldn't that be applied to ANYTHING? Isn't that why we have anti-government terrorists? Environment terrorists? Why people kill and hurt people who are on opposite ideological sides?
We are human. We take perfectly good motives (both religious and NON-religious as well) and we twist them to suit our needs. Most of the time it's no big deal, sometimes it offends others, sometimes it annoys other, sometimes it makes us money or gives us power and in rare and very unfortunate cases it kills people.
You know, while I agree that people shouldn't have blind faith in science, on a realistic level, what choice do most people have? Even the scientifically literate layperson can have a hard time slogging through some science papers. What hope beyond blind faith does the average schmoe have? It's easy to say the research and proofs are out there and available, but without the tools to be able to decipher and critically analzye such papers, they may as well be the Voynich manuscript.
That's what good popular science is for. Again, I bring up Stephen J. Gould because there's just no better introduction for the layperson into the application of evolutionary theory, but there are plenty of awesome popular science writers like Jared Diamond and Michael Shermer. They make you want to read more about the actual science behind what they talk about, or at least that was my experience.
And Espy, I still have to disagree with you about the "good motive." Their motive isn't "let's get people on our side," it's "let's trick people who want to think critically into believing what we do." That is not a good motive. That is carnival shystering, both in motive and in method.
And Espy, I still have to disagree with you about the "good motive." Their motive isn't "let's get people on our side," it's "let's trick people who want to think critically into believing what we do." That is not a good motive. That is carnival shystering, both in motive and in method.
We aren't actually disagree on whether or not their motive is good then. We are disagree on their motive. I say their motive is less insidious than you, but their actions are the trickery.
In the end though, it amounts to the same so we can just agree that if you see them give 'em a kick in the nuts from Espy and ZenMonkey.
C
Chazwozel
Well... you don't exactly need to know the breakdown of a car engine to trust the mechanic when he tells you that you need a new head gasket. Scientists are sort of similar in that retrospect.
Well... you don't exactly need to know the breakdown of a car engine to trust the mechanic when he tells you that you need a new head gasket. Scientists are sort of similar in that retrospect.[/quote]
So, you're basically saying that you have to have faith that the mechanic is telling you the truth.
-edited for snark-
Of course. In the context of the thread, though, it seems that you are trying to use it as a defense of people - up to a point. Yes, you do say right away that you don't agree with their actions, but still - you mean it as a defense against (needlessly) demonizing these people. This same defense can be used successfully for almost anyone, tohugh. There are fairly few comic book villains in the world, and psychopaths aren't the greatest amount of criminals, either. A whole ot of people who do things that go against the greater good - or, at least, the greater good as perceived by those wielding the power to make laws - do so because they honestly believe they're doing the right thing. This can be diverted straight back into the terrorists-vs-freedom-fighters debate; in the end, for many, many actions, your stance on it will be heavily influenced by how well you understand their motives and whether orn ot you agree with them.
A Frenchman blowing up a Nazi tax office may have done so with far less noble ideas than an Afghan blowing up an American sentry post; yet the first one is a resistance fighter,and the second is an evil terorist. Both, in the end, did something they believe they did for the betterment of their country or themselves or the people. The same applies to the Hara Krishna folks preaching in shopping streets, Jehova's witnesses going door to door, or what have you. Assuming they're not from some sect just doing it for the money, they probably really do believe they're trying to save my soul, and I can only thank them for that Honest! They can annoy me greatly, but that's another matter.
However, when you go from "preaching and taking a bit of my time" to "abuse books/science", "intimidate people", "hurt people" or "kill people", you're overdoing the whole "ends justify the means" thing.
Why is it bad to try and understand where people are coming from though? I'm not defending them one bit, I'm saying that I think it's really sad they are coming at it from this direction. It's sneaky, underhanded and thats just the tip of the iceberg.
See, I'm saying they don't NEED to do this. If they want to show God's love to people, do it. Don't be sneaky about it.
See, I'm saying they don't NEED to do this. If they want to show God's love to people, do it. Don't be sneaky about it.
- Status